The International Rescue Committee, a refugee advocacy group headed by former U.K. foreign secretary David Miliband, has urged the United States to resettle 65,000 refugees from Syria by the end of next year. The head of the State Department bureau in charge of carrying out the U.N.’s instructions on refugees (the U.N. decides who gets to move to the U.S.) said last week, in the AP’s words, “that between 1,000 and 2,000 Syrian refugees will be brought to the U.S. by the end of September and several thousand more in 2016.” Miliband welcomed this but said “it certainly needs to improve.”

The more important question is, why are we resettling any Middle Eastern refugees at all?Since January 2013, State Department numbers show that we’ve resettled here in the U.S. only 697 Syrian refugees, more than 90 percent of them Muslims. The FBI admitted at a congressional hearing in February that it lacked the capacity to do meaningful background checks on such refugees. That’s why we have headlines like “US May Have Let ‘Dozens’ of Terrorists Into Country As Refugees.”

But putting the security threat aside, why would we take any Arab refugees from any war-torn country in the Middle East? Resettlement in a faraway country should be the absolute last resort; it’s preferable that displaced people be accommodated in countries near their homeland, facilitating eventual return, and in countries that are culturally similar to ease the strains for both the refugees and the host country.

In that vein, why aren’t we demanding that Saudi Arabia resettle the Syrians?

I can think of several reasons, first, the Saudis don’t want any diversity in S.A. and have been deporting all their Muslim brethren riffraff who sneak in there from Somalia, Yemen, even Rohingya (from Burma), etc.

The UNHCR is pushing impoverished refugees on the US (to help us get diversity!) and more democrat voters.

Then the US resettlement contractors are paid by the head to bring them here, so big bucks are involved.

And, finally, this is about the Hijra—Mohammed told his followers to migrate to dominate all the lands of the world—and so the UN and Obama are helping bring that about, and, of course, S.A. doesn’t need more Muslim migrants to bring about shariah law. They have it!

Just when I thought it was safe to move on to something other than news from Spartanburg, SC, up pops this storyabout World Relief in South Carolina in my “Malta” alerts.

Why is this mentioned in conjunction with the tiny island nation of Malta, I wondered (until I got to this paragraph at the end):

According to State Department figures, 73 refugees entered South Carolina from October 2014 through February. Refugees came from Burma, Ethiopia, Iraq, Kenya, Malaysia, Malta, Namibia, Rwanda, Sudan, Tajikistan and Thailand. Most were from Malaysia (16) and Thailand (14). Four refugees from Iraq also arrived here during that same time frame.

Security concerns in the Malta refugee flow to America!

What the reporter accessed here (or the State Department gave her) is the data on where the refugee was PROCESSED. Malta is a stable country and we don’t take Maltese people (Europeans) as refugees. WE DO TAKE OVER 500 A YEAR OF MALTA’S ILLEGAL ALIENS who crossed the Mediterranean from North Africa to America as supposed REFUGEES.

In fact, Rep. Michael McCaul (Homeland Security) should be holding hearings about the US taking any of the boat people arriving on Malta from Libya as ISIS has said it will infiltrate the ‘refugee’ flow.

Here is a recent post on the State Department telling Malta we will take more of their illegal overload!

We probably have a hundred posts here at RRW on the Malta problem. Click herefor our complete archive.

Also, we don’t take Kenyans as refugees. When Kenya is listed as a processing country, those are most likely Somalis from the UN camps in Kenya! Thailand and Malaysia are UN processing countries as well, so this information tells us nothing about what the ethnic mix is that has gone to SC.

Now back to World Relief’s very interesting admission: They do get “push back,” but the churches invited them to Spartanburg!

So the Left-leaning churches get to decide the fate of your towns?

Jenny Yang is vice president of Advocacy and Policy at World Relief. In a phone interview, Yang said the agency spent months getting approval from federal and state officials.

Yang said a proposal [we would like to see that proposal!–ed] was submitted to the State Department that oversees the refugee resettlement program. She said the final decision is up to a state refugee coordinator***who determines whether cities are able to receive refugees, including housing and economic opportunities. [Really! The state refugee coordinator has that much power!—ed]

Yang also said World Relief worked with local churches for several months before it considered opening an office. “It wasn’t a decision that was spur of the moment,” she said.

Yang said World Relief could answer Gowdy’s questions. She said the organization has received some “push back” in other cities, mostly from local officials.

“We wouldn’t have opened an office if it weren’t for conversations that we had with churches and those churches actually asking us to come in to help them in their mission of helping the foreign born and refugees in their communities,” Yang said.

She said that World Relief opens offices in cities where churches and community members express support, as well as “practical considerations” such as housing and economic opportunities.

“There has been very vocal support, especially among churches that want to welcome these refugees, and that’s the reason we’re going to Spartanburg,” Yang said.

*** The South Carolina State Refugee Coordinator is listed here. Time to check in with them and see what they approved!

Here is more on that extremely well-thought-out letter Rep. Trey Gowdy sentto Secretary of State Kerry yesterday in which he asks the same questions every town in America confronted with the arrival of a US State Department refugee contractor asks. His questions could apply as well to those already overloaded cities wanting to know who is deciding that they get more refugees than they can handle.

Readers! Implore Rep. Gowdy to hold hearings and shine the light on this monstrosity!

Specifically, Gowdy grilled Kerry on how the planned resettlement came into being, which state agencies approved it, how much government funding the project is receiving, what benefits the refugees would be eligible to receive, when the first refugees were scheduled to arrive, how the refugees were selected and what sort of long-term obligations their presence would impose on taxpayers.

Our contention is that every town confronted with the nine federal contractors and their 350 subcontractors working secretively is entitled to have all the facts on the table for public discussion in advance, and let the citizens decide if it is right for their town!

Spotlight on National Immigration Forum

Fitsnewshas this bit at the end of its piece that I found intriguing about the involvement of the NIF:

Props to Gowdy and Hicks [SC Rep Donna Hicks] for shining the light on this issue – as well as to Upstate activist Christina Jeffrey, who has been organizing opposition to the plan.

As we noted in our report, “previous resettlement campaigns couched as ‘evangelical’ efforts have in reality been front groups for liberal campaigns like the National Immigration Forum – a group that’s received funding from organizations affiliated with billionaire liberal financier George Soros.

We have written previously about the National Immigration Forum (NIF)and its leader Ali Noorani who we posited may be being helped by Grover Norquist. See this 2013 post we wrote on NIF (apologies for calling them the Christian RIGHT, we know now they are the Christian LEFT). There are other posts in which we mention Pakistani Ali Noorani here.

See that Jeb Bush was on NIF’s board when I wrote that post!

Go here for contact information on how to reach one of Rep. Trey Gowdy’s offices and ask that he hold hearings on the Refugee Resettlement Program which, in the last almost 8 years I’ve followed it, has never been scrutinized by Congress. I’ll bet in its 35 year history, Congress has never asked any questions!

For new readers: Go here for the whole history of the Spartanburg controversy.